Meilah 4B

ועוד, דקתני סיפא: לן דמה, אף על פי שחזר וזרקו ⁠– מועלין בו.

And furthermore, one may cite proof for the opinion of Rav Giddel from that baraita, as the latter clause of the baraita teaches: If its blood was left overnight instead of being sprinkled on the altar on the day it was slaughtered, even though the priest later sprinkled it on the following day, nevertheless, one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property.

אי אמרת בשלמא בחטאת ⁠– שפיר.

The Talmud analyzes this statement of the baraita: Granted, if you say that the baraita is referring to a sin offering, then it is well. Since the blood was disqualified for sprinkling by being left overnight, it does not become permitted to the priests even after the blood is sprinkled, and is therefore subject to the halakhot of misuse. But if the blood had not been left overnight, the offering would not be subject to the halakhot of misuse, as the sprinkling would have removed the sin offering from that category due to the fact that it became permitted for the priests.

אלא אי אמרת בעולה ⁠– צריכא למימר?

But if you say that the baraita is referring to a burnt offering, does it need to be said that it is still subject to the halakhot of misuse? A burnt offering remains subject to the halakhot of misuse even if the blood had not been left overnight and the sprinkling was performed properly, as it never becomes permitted to the priests.

סיפא ודאי מסייע ליה. רישא, מאי? הואיל ומסייע ליה סיפא, מסייע ליה נמי רישא?

The Talmud comments: The latter clause of the baraita certainly supports the opinion of Rav Giddel, as it clearly shows that an unfit sprinkling does not remove an offering from being subject to the halakhot of misuse. But with regard to the first clause of the baraita, what does it teach concerning the opinion of Rav Giddel? Is it reasonable to say that since the latter clause of the baraita supports the opinion of Rav Giddel, the earlier clause, which states that piggul is always subject to the halakhot of misuse, also supports his opinion?